ArticlePublic health nutrition2013
Public health benefits and risks of fish consumption: current scientific evidence v. media coverage.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fish Consumption: A Review of Its Effects on Metabolic and Hormonal Health.Nutrition and metabolic insights · 2021Review
- Polyunsaturated fatty acid composition of maternal diet and erythrocyte phospholipid status in Chilean pregnant women.Nutrients · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate if and how the current degree of scientific uncertainty about the safety of fish consumption is incorporated at the media level.
designWe used a dedicated software (TalTac®) to investigate the content of 169 news articles related to ‘mercury and fish consumption’ that appeared from 1990 to 2010 in the two Italian broadsheets with the highest circulation figures, in order to identify journalistic frames used in the coverage of benefits v. risks associated with fish consumption. Hypotheses were made on how the public might change fish consumption patterns as a result of media coverage.
settingItaly.
resultsThe two newspapers have different agendas in covering the issue. La Repubblica appears to support the view that, besides health benefits, there may be risks associated with fish consumption, while Corriere della Sera emphasizes health benefits more than possible risks. Depending on the preferred information source, the public could: (i) reduce its fish intake; (ii) increase its fish intake; or (iii) become confused about the problem and sceptical towards the media, as a result of conflicting journalistic frames.
conclusionsThe Italian media, in cooperation with scientists, public health nutritionists and dietitians, should place more emphasis on the existence of a few fish species with high to very high Hg levels and relatively low contents of beneficial n-3 fatty acids (e.g. swordfish and shark). This would enable consumers to make more educated purchasing decisions to maximize the benefits of n-3 intake while reducing possible risks from consuming Hg-contaminated fish.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.